The safety and efficacy of midlines compared to peripherally inserted central catheters for adult cystic fibrosis patients: A retrospective, observational study

Infiltration and Extravasation Risk with Midline Catheters: A Narrative Literature Review

Midline catheters have recently gained popularity in clinical use, with a common reason being the reduction of central venous catheter use and central line-associated bloodstream infections. At the same time, the number of nononcology vesicant medications has increased, and midline catheters are frequently being used for infusions of vesicant medications. The Infusion Nurses Society (INS) Vesicant Task Force identified midline catheter use as a possible risk factor for extravasation and concluded that a thorough literature review was necessary. This review highlights the variations in catheter terminology and tip locations, the frequency of infiltration and extravasation in published studies, and case reports of infiltration and extravasation from midline catheters. It also examines the many clinical issues requiring evidence-based decision-making for the most appropriate type of vascular access devices. After more than 30 years of clinical practice with midline catheters and what appears to be a significant number of studies, evidence is still insufficient to answer questions about infusion of vesicant and irritant medications through midline catheters. Given the absence of consensus on tip location, inadequate evidence of clinical outcomes, and importance of patient safety, the continuous infusion of vesicants, all parenteral nutrition formulas, and infusates with extremes in pH and osmolarity should be avoided through midline catheters.

Safety of non-cuffed tunneled central venous catheters in adults with cystic fibrosis

BACKGROUND

Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are the most common route of intravenous (I.V.) access for treatment of cystic fibrosis (CF) pulmonary exacerbations, but repeated PICC placement can result in upper extremity peripheral venous stenosis. Once peripheral stenosis develops, a non-cuffed tunneled central venous catheter (NcTCVC) is an alternative route for IV access. While these are regularly used at some CF centers, the safety and complication rate compared to PICCs in adults with CF has not been reported. This study aims to describe the safety of NcTCVCs in adults with CF.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was performed at a CF Foundation accredited institution including adults with CF who received NcTCVCs in interventional radiology from 7/19/2007 to 3/09/2020. Complications analyzed included catheter related deep venous thrombosis (DVT), central line associated blood stream infection (CLABSI), and catheter related central venous stenosis. Complications were considered attributable if they occurred while the catheter was in place or within 30 days of catheter removal.

RESULTS

During the study duration, 386 NcTCVCs were placed in 60 unique patients (55 % female) with a mean of 6.4 catheters per patient. Majority of NcTCVCs placed were 4 French (61.4 %). Average duration of indwelling NcTCVC was 16.2 days. No patients demonstrated catheter attributable symptomatic DVT. The incidence of DVT, CLABSI, and central venous stenosis was 0 (0 %), 4 (1 %), and 1 (0.3 %), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Many adults with CF have required insertion of numerous PICCs for the treatment of recurrent pulmonary exacerbations. In those adults that develop PICC-associated peripheral vein stenosis precluding PICC placement, these results indicate NcTCVCs are a safe alternative.

Midline Compared With Peripheral Intravenous Catheters for Therapy of 4 Days or Longer in Pediatric Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) frequently fail during treatment causing therapy interruption, pain, recatheterization, and additional health care costs. Midline catheters (MCs) may improve functional dwell time and reduce failure compared with traditional PIVCs.

Objective

To compare device failure of MCs with PIVCs.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This was a pragmatic, randomized clinical superiority trial with an embedded internal pilot study conducted from July 2020 to May 2022. The study took place in a quaternary pediatric hospital in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. Inclusion criteria were patients aged 1 to 18 years requiring peripherally compatible intravenous therapy for 4 days or longer.

Interventions

Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive a PIVC or MC, stratified by age (≤5 years, >5 years). One catheter was studied per patient.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was all-cause device failure, defined as premature cessation of device function. Secondary outcomes included number of insertion attempts, insertion failure, pain (on insertion), procedural time, patient/parent satisfaction (with insertion), device dwell time, device complications during dwell time, additional vascular access devices required to complete treatment, clinician satisfaction (at removal), and health care costs.

Results

Of the 128 patients randomly assigned to study groups, 127 patients (median [IQR] age, 7 [2-13] years; 71 male [56%]) had a device inserted, with 65 (51.2%) in the PIVC group and 62 (48.8%) in the MC group. All patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Device failure was lower in patients in the MC group (10 [16.1%]) compared with those in the PIVC group (30 [46.2%]; odds ratio [OR], 0.22; 95% CI, 0.10-0.52; P <.001). MCs were associated with fewer insertion attempts (mean difference [MD], -0.3; 95% CI, -0.5 to 0; P = .04), increased dwell time (MD, 66.9 hours; 95% CI, 36.2-97.5 hours; P <.001), and fewer patients required additional vascular access devices to complete treatment in the MC group (4 [6.5%]) and PIVC group (19 [29.2%]; OR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.05-0.52; P = .002). Compared with PIVCs, use of MCs was associated with greater patient (9.0 vs 7.1 of 10; P = .002) and parent (9.1 vs 8.2 of 10; P = .02) satisfaction and lower health care costs (AUS -$151.67 [US -$101.13] per person; 95% credible interval, AUS -$171.45 to -$131.90 [US -$114.20 to -$87.95]).

Conclusions and Relevance

Findings suggest that MC insertion for patients requiring peripherally compatible intravenous therapy for 4 days or longer should be prioritized to reduce the resource intensive, expensive, and burdensome sequelae of device failure.

Trial Registration

Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12620000724976.

Impact of terminal tip location of midline catheters on catheter-related complications and indwelling duration in elderly patients

AIM

To investigate the relationship between the position of the midline catheter tip and the frequency and type of complications associated with its placement.

DESIGN

A cohort study was performed on patients between May 2018 and December 2021 who underwent midline catheter placement at our institution. Patients were divided into two groups, superficial implementation and deep implementation, based on the midline catheter tip location relative to the clavicle.

METHODS

Clinical data and outcome parameters, including the numbers and types of midline catheter-related complications, day of occurrence and catheter indwell duration, were recorded.

RESULTS

Catheter-related complications occurred in 14 individuals. Compared with the superficial implementation group, the incidence of complications in the deep catheterization group was significantly reduced, with a delayed first occurrence time, and a prolonged catheter indwelling time. The results suggested that locating the midline catheter tip in the distal segment of the axillary vein may reduce catheter-related complication incidence and prolong the indwelling duration.

Comparing Complication Rates of Midline Catheter vs Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter. A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background

Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) and midlines are commonly used devices for reliable vascular access. Infection and thrombosis are the main adverse effects of these catheters. We aimed to evaluate the relative risk of complications from midlines and PICCs.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. The primary outcomes were catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) and thrombosis. Secondary outcomes evaluated included mortality, failure to complete therapy, catheter occlusion, phlebitis, and catheter fracture. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.

Results

Of 8368 citations identified, 20 studies met the eligibility criteria, including 1 RCT and 19 observational studies. Midline use was associated with fewer patients with CRBSI compared with PICCs (odds ratio [OR], 0.24; 95% CI, 0.15-0.38). This association was not observed when we evaluated risk per catheter. No significant association was found between catheters when evaluating risk of localized thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. A subgroup analysis based on location of thrombosis showed higher rates of superficial venous thrombosis in patients using midlines (OR, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.48-3.57). We did not identify any significant difference between midlines and PICCs for the secondary outcomes.

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that patients who use midlines might experience fewer CRBSIs than those who use PICCs. However, the use of midline catheters was associated with greater risk of superficial vein thrombosis. These findings can help guide future cost-benefit analyses and direct comparative RCTs to further characterize the efficacy and risks of PICCs vs midline catheters.

European recommendations on the proper indication and use of peripheral venous access devices (the ERPIUP consensus): A WoCoVA project

Since several innovations have recently changed the criteria of choice and management of peripheral venous access (new devices, new techniques of insertion, new recommendations for maintenance), the WoCoVA Foundation (WoCoVA = World Conference on Vascular Access) has developed an international Consensus with the following objectives: to propose a clear and useful classification of the currently available peripheral venous access devices; to clarify the proper indication of central versus peripheral venous access; discuss the indications of the different peripheral venous access devices (short peripheral cannulas vs long peripheral cannulas vs midline catheters); to define the proper techniques of insertion and maintenance that should be recommended today. To achieve these purposes, WoCoVA have decided to adopt a European point of view, considering some relevant differences of terminology between North America and Europe in this area of venous access and the need for a common basis of understanding among the experts recruited for this project. The ERPIUP Consensus (ERPIUP = European Recommendations for Proper Indication and Use of Peripheral venous access) was designed to offer systematic recommendations for clinical practice, covering every aspect of management of peripheral venous access devices in the adult patient: indication, insertion, maintenance, prevention and treatment of complications, removal. Also, our purpose was to improve the standardization of the terminology, bringing clarity of definition, and classification.

Risk Factors for Midline Catheter Failure: A Secondary Analysis of an Existing Trial

Objective

While midline catheters (MCs) are considered to be a reliable form of vascular access, up to 25% of the placements culminate in failure. We aimed to explore risk factors for MC failure.

Methods

We performed an analysis of existing randomized controlled trial data involving a comparison of two midline catheters. The study aimed to assess risk factors related to MC failure, including patient, procedure, catheter, and vein characteristics. Cox regression was used for univariable and multivariable analyses to evaluate the association between characteristics and MC failure.

Results

Among 191 patients that were included in this secondary analysis, more patients were female (114/191 [59.7%]) and average age was 60.2 (SD = 16.7) years. Clinical indications for MC placement included antibiotics (60.7%), difficult venous access (32.5%), or both (6.8%). In a univariable Cox regression analysis, the increase in pulse rate (HR 1.02; 95% CI, 1.00–1.04; P=0.02), temperature ≥38°C (HR 5.59; 95% CI, 1.96–15.94; P=0.001), oxygen saturation <93% (HR 2.91; 95% CI, 1.03–8.24; P=0.04), norepinephrine in dextrose infusion (HR 2.41; 95% CI, 1.17–4.97; P=0.02) and cephalic vein insertion (HR, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.09–5.57; P=0.03) were all associated with higher risk of MC failure. In a multivariable Cox model, difficult venous access (aHR 2.05; 95% CI, 1.04–4.05; P=0.04) and norepinephrine in dextrose (aHR 2.29; 95% CI, 1.09–4.82; P=0.03) was associated with catheter failure.

Conclusion

Elevated pulse rate, decreased oxygen saturation level, temperature ≥38°C, and norepinephrine use were each associated with an increased risk of MC failure. These factors should be considered when selecting the most appropriate vascular access device for individual patients. Additionally, the cephalic vein insertion has the highest risk for MC failure and other access points could be preferentially considered.

Ultrasound-guided placement of long peripheral cannula in children with cystic fibrosis

BACKGROUND

The natural history of cystic fibrosis (CF) lung disease is a chronic deterioration of lung function with intermittent episodes of pulmonary infectious exacerbations (PExs). Reliable venous access is a milestone of effective management of such exacerbations, managed both in hospital and outpatient chronic therapy. The aim of our study was to analyze the feasibility of ultrasound-guided positioning of long peripheral catheters (LPC) as reliable midterm venous access in children affected by CF.

METHODS

In this single-center prospective study, over a 60-month period, we included paediatric CF subjects admitted with PExs and undergoing intravenous antibiotic treatment. LPCs were inserted in all participants by paediatric anaesthesiologists with ultrasound guide technique. Prospective data were collected assessing catheter positioning procedure and complications.

RESULTS

A total of 122 LPC insertions were performed in 55 CF children. Participants had a median age of 6.75 years (interquatile range: 3.7-13.5) at the time of catheter insertion. Implantation was successful on the first attempt in 86% of cases; 2 (1%) major insertion-related complications were reported. Eighty-eight percent of catheters were electively removed at the end of antibiotic therapy without any complication. Seven percent of the catheters were removed electively for occlusion and 2% for local dislodgment.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the present study suggest that ultrasound-guided positioning of LPCs are safe alternative means of peripheral venous access in children with chronic diseases such as CF.

Does the Midline Peripheral Intravenous Catheter Have a Place in Critical Care?

BACKGROUND

The goals of infusion therapy are to preserve vascular health and safely deliver needed treatment. Achieving these goals is challenging in critical care because of the complexity of the treatment required. Daily justification of retaining an existing central venous catheter also creates urgency to change to a peripheral vascular access device. The midline catheter has had a resurgence in use because of the need for a long-term peripheral vascular access device not linked to central catheter-associated bloodstream infection risk.

OBJECTIVE

To review the characteristics of midline catheters, the benefits and risks of midline catheters, and current evidence regarding midline catheter use in critical care.

RESULTS

Research related to midline catheters has greatly expanded the body of knowledge regarding vascular access device selection and midline catheter use.

DISCUSSION

Although the quality and results of research on vascular access devices vary widely, a more accurate safety profile is emerging to illustrate how midline catheter use can support the goals of infusion therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Optimizing vascular access device selection requires recognition that every vascular access device can cause patient harm. Although the midline catheter appears to fill an important niche in infusion therapy, use of the midline catheter should be carefully evaluated. Midline catheters should not be used as a catheter-associated bloodstream infection prevention strategy, should be inserted to administer peripherally compatible solutions, and should be considered for short-term continuous vesicant therapy only in emergent situations until more definitive vascular access can be achieved.

Prevention of Central-Line Associated Bloodstream Infections: 2021 Update

Despite a large volume of research in prevention, central line-associated bloodstream infections and catheter-related bloodstream infections continue to cause significant morbidity, mortality, and increased health care costs. Strategies in prevention, including decision about catheter placement, insertion bundles, adherence to standard of care guidelines, and technologic innovations, shown to decrease rates of catheter-related bloodstream infections and central line-associated bloodstream infections are described in this update. The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has resulted in increased health care-acquired infections, including central line-associated bloodstream infections.

Comparison of 2 Midline Catheter Devices With Differing Antithrombogenic Mechanisms for Catheter-Related Thrombosis: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Data regarding upper extremity midline catheter (MC)-related thrombosis (CRT) are sparse, with some evidence indicating that MCs have a high rate of CRT.

OBJECTIVE

To compare 2 MCs with differing antithrombogenic mechanisms for this outcome.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

In this parallel, 2-arm randomized clinical trial, 496 adult patients hospitalized at a tertiary care suburban academic medical center who received an MC were assessed for eligibility between January 1, 2019, and October 31, 2020, and 212 were randomized.

INTERVENTIONS

Inpatients were randomized to receive a 4F antithrombotic MC (MC-AT) or a 4.5F antithrombotic and antimicrobial MC (MC-AT-AM).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was symptomatic midline CRT inclusive of deep vein thrombosis or superficial venous thrombophlebitis within 30 days after insertion. Secondary outcomes included catheter-associated bloodstream infection and catheter failure.

RESULTS

A total of 191 patients (mean [SD] age, 60.2 [16.7] years; 114 [59.7%] female) were included in the final analysis: 94 patients in the MC-AT group and 97 in the MC-AT-AM group. Symptomatic midline CRT occurred in 7 patients (7.5%) in the MC-AT group and 11 (11.3%) in the MC-AT-AM group (P = .46). Deep vein thrombosis occurred in 5 patients (5.3%) in the MC-AT group and 5 patients (5.2%) in the MC-AT-AM group (P > .99). Pulmonary embolism occurred in 1 patient in the MC-AT group. No catheter-associated bloodstream infection occurred in either group. Premature catheter failure occurred in 22 patients (23.4%) in the MC-AT group and 20 (20.6%) in the MC-AT-AM group (P = .64). In Cox proportional hazards regression analysis, no statistically significant difference was found between groups for the risk of catheter failure (hazard ratio, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.67-2.43; P = .46).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

No difference was found in thrombosis in MCs with 2 distinct antithrombogenic mechanisms; however, the risk of CRT in both groups was high. Practitioners should strongly consider the safety risks associated with MCs when determining the appropriate vascular access device.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03725293.

PICC versus midlines: Comparison of peripherally inserted central catheters and midline catheters with respect to incidence of thromboembolic and infectious complications

INTRODUCTION

To decrease the complications related to central catheters there has been an increasing utilization of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC) and ultrasound-guided long peripheral intravenous catheters (i.e. midlines). While the complications of PICC lines are well described there is less reported data on complications related to midline catheters. Our study aims are to compare the incidences of infectious and deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and sepsis related to PICCs and Midlines.

METHODS

We performed a single-center retrospective review at an academic hospital. Data were collected on patients admitted between 1/1/2014-5/31/2016. Patient demographics, hospital length of stay (LOS), and ventilator days were collected. Outcomes of interest were line-related infections and thromboembolic events after the placement of these catheters. Endpoints were compared between three groups (PICC group, midline group and PICC placement followed by midline placement group). Univariate and multivariable analyses were used to compare across the three groups.

RESULTS

The study included 3560 unique patients with 5058 catheters. There was an increase in use of midlines over the observed study period (245% increase from the end of 2015 to the middle of 2016). We found no significant differences in the rates of DVT among the three groups (PICC 4%, midline 3% and PICC-midline 4%; p = 0.12). There were no differences across the groups for sepsis (PICC 29%, midline 27%, and PICC-midline 32%; p = 0.14) or septic shock (PICC 7%, midline 8%, and PICC-midline 6%; p = 0.39). Adjusted means LOS were higher for patients with PICC lines compared to midlines, in both females and males. PICC group stayed longer, on average, on the ventilator compared to the midline group. No other significant differences were seen among groups.

CONCLUSION

Increased utilization of midline catheters were not associated with decreased risk of DVT or sepsis when compared to peripherally inserted central catheters.

Experience in the use of midclavicular catheters: An inception cohort study

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To describe the outcomes of midclavicular catheters related to first insertion success rate, catheter dwell time, rate of catheter survival until the end of the treatment, and complication rates, as well as identify risk factors associated with early catheter removal.

BACKGROUND

Midclavicular catheters are peripheral venous catheters that are typically 20-25 cm in length.

DESIGN

Inception cohort study.

METHODS

We included all the midclavicular lines inserted in patients who met any of the following criteria: (a) difficult venous access; (b) administration of intravenous therapy expected to last between 6 and 30 days with non-irritant (pH=5-9) and/or non-vesicant drugs; or (c) contraindications to central venous catheter placement. The incidence of adverse events was calculated using percentages and episodes per 1,000 catheter days. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify significant risk factors for unexpected catheter removal by calculating odds ratios. Catheter survival was assessed using Cox regression analysis. The STROBE guidelines were followed.

RESULTS

Overall, 2,275 midclavicular lines were placed in 1,841 participants. The insertion success rate was 99.4% and the mean catheter dwell time was 21.82 days. The rate of adverse events was .7 per 1,000 catheter days, the most common complications being thrombosis (.39) and catheter-associated bacteraemia (.14). No significant association was found between adverse events and the administration of irritant drugs. The incidence of unexpected removal was 6.7 per 1,000 catheter days. The multivariate analysis showed that both age ≤70 years and home therapy were associated with a lower likelihood of catheter failure.

CONCLUSIONS

Midclavicular catheters are associated with a high rate of insertion success and low rates of adverse events and unplanned removal.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Midclavicular lines are a safe alternative for intravenous therapy lasting more than 6 days, even with irritant drugs.

Comparison of midline catheters and peripherally inserted central catheters to reduce the need for general anesthesia in children with respiratory disease: A feasibility randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The optimal intravenous device for antibiotic administration for children with respiratory disease is uncertain. We assessed the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial comparing midline catheters with peripherally inserted central catheters.

METHODS

Prospective, two-arm, feasibility randomized controlled trial in an Australian tertiary, pediatric hospital. Random assignment of 110 children (<18 years) to receive (i) midline catheter and (ii) peripherally inserted central catheters. Primary outcome was feasibility (eligibility, recruitment, retention, protocol adherence, and acceptability), and the primary clinical outcome was general anesthesia requirement for intravenous catheter insertion.

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

insertion time, treatment delays, infusion efficiency, device failure, complications, and cost.

RESULTS

There was 80% recruitment, 100% retention, no missing data, and high patient/staff acceptability. Mean patient experience assessed on a 0-10 numeric rating scale was 8.0 peripherally inserted central catheters and 9.0 (midline catheters), respectively. Participant eligibility was not achieved (49% of screened patients) and moderate protocol-adherence across groups (89% peripherally inserted central catheters vs. 76% midline catheter). Insertion of midline catheter for pulmonary optimization reduced the requirement for general anesthesia compared to peripherally inserted central catheters (10% vs. 69%; odds ratio = 0.01, 95% confidence interval: 0.00-0.09). Midline catheters failed more frequently (18.1 vs. 5.5 peripherally inserted central catheters per 1000 catheter-days); however, this reduced over trial duration. Midline catheter insertion compared to peripherally inserted central catheters saved AUD$1451 per pulmonary optimization episode.

CONCLUSIONS

An efficacy trial is feasible with expanded eligibility criteria and intensive staff training when introducing a new device. Midline catheter for peripherally compatible infusions is acceptable to patients and staff, might negate the need for general anesthesia and results in significant cost savings.

The Practice and Complications of Midline Catheters: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

Midline catheters are considered "midway" regarding vascular access. The objective of this systematic review was to explore the current practice, dwell time, and complication rates of midline catheters.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

SETTING

Search on four databases, PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, and Embase, were conducted for English language articles published after the year 2000.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

A total of 987 articles were identified, of which 31 manuscripts met the inclusion criteria and were selected for review. Quality assurance was performed based on the Newcastle-Ottawa score. Average dwell time and complication rates were calculated for studies involving adult patients and adjusted for sample size. This analysis included data from the placement of 18,972 midline catheters across five countries. Aside from two randomized control trials, most of the studies analyzed were cohort studies. One pediatric and two neonatal studies were included. The average dwell time was 16.3 days (n = 4,412). The adjusted mean infection rate was 0.28/1,000 catheter days, with 64% of studies not reporting any infection with midline catheter. The failure rate of midline catheters was 12.5%. Adjusted average rates of other significant complications included the following: deep vein thrombosis (4.1%), dislodgement (5.0%), occlusion (3.8%), phlebitis (3.4%), and infiltration (1.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

The dwell times and failure rates of midline catheters compare favorably against published data on other types of catheters. Their infection rates are also lower than the reported rates of central venous catheters; however, they have a higher rate of mechanical complications. Active surveillance of infections due to midline catheters is recommended. More data are needed from pediatric and neonatal populations.

A meta-analysis of the comparison of phlebitis between midline catheters and peripherally inserted central catheters in infusion therapy

AIMS

To compare the risk of phlebitis between midline catheters and peripherally inserted central catheters in infusion therapy with a meta-analysis.

DESIGN

This was a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane Library, ProQuest, CNKI, WanFang, VIP and SinoMed were searched from inception to May 2020.

REVIEW METHODS

All studies comparing the risk of phlebitis between midline catheters and peripherally inserted central catheters were included. According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, two authors independently assessed the literature and extracted the data. Meta-analyses were conducted to generate estimates of phlebitis risk in patients with midline catheters verse peripherally inserted central catheters, and publication bias was evaluated with RevMan 5.3.

RESULTS

A total of seven studies were collected, involving 1377 participants. The incidence of phlebitis with midline catheters and peripherally inserted central catheters was 1.52% and 3.41%. Meta-analysis showed that the incidence of phlebitis has no significant difference between midline catheters and peripherally inserted central catheters. The sensitivity analysis shows that the results from this meta-analysis are fair in overall studies. All studies have no significant publication bias.

CONCLUSION

This study provides the first systematic assessment of the risk of phlebitis between midline catheters and peripherally inserted central catheters. The incidence of phlebitis has no significant difference between them. There are many factors to consider when choosing vascular access devices.

The risk of venous thromboembolism associated with midline catheters compared with peripherally inserted central catheters: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Both midline catheters (MCs) and peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) can cause venous thromboembolism (VTE), but the prevalence associated with each is controversial.

Objective

To compare the risk of VTE between MCs and PICCs with a systematic review and meta‐analysis.

Methods

The Web of Science Core Collection, PubMed, Scopus, Embase, the Cochrane Library and ProQuest were searched from inception to January 2020. All studies comparing the risk of VTE between MCs and PICCs were included. Selected studies were assessed for methodological quality using the Downs and Black checklist. Two authors independently assessed the literature and extracted the data. Any different opinion was resolved through third‐party consensus. Meta‐analyses were conducted to generate estimates of VTE risk in patients with MCs versus PICCs, and publication bias was evaluated with RevMan 5.3.

Results

A total of 86 studies were identified. Twelve studies were recruited, involving 40,871 patients. The prevalence of VTE with MCs and PICCs was 3.97% (310/7806) and 2.29% (758/33065), respectively. Meta‐analysis showed that the prevalence of VTE with MCs was higher than that with PICCs (RR=1.53, 95% CI: 1.33–1.76, p < .00001). Subgroup analyses by age showed that the prevalence of VTE with MCs was higher than that with PICCs in the adult group (RR=1.75, 95% CI: 1.38–2.22, p < .00001), and higher than that with PICCs in the other subgroups (RR=1.42, 95% CI: 1.19–1.69, p = .0001). Subgroup analyses by nation showed that the prevalence of VTE with MCs was higher than that with PICCs (RR=1.50, 95% CI: 1.30–1.73, p < .00001) in US subgroup and higher than that with PICCs (RR=2.87, 95% CI: 1.24–6.65, p = .01) in the other nations. The sensitivity analysis shows that the results from this meta‐analysis are robust and all studies have no significant publication bias.

Conclusions

This study provides the first systematic assessment of the risk of VTE between MCs and PICCs. MCs are associated with a higher risk of VTE than PICCs in all patients and adults. The findings of this study have several important implications for future practice. However, the risk of VTE between MCs and PICCs in children is unclear.

Risk factors for catheter related thrombosis during outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy

BACKGROUND

Outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) delivery using peripherally inserted central catheters is associated with a risk of catheter related thrombosis (CRT). Individualised preventative interventions may reduce this occurrence, however patient selection is hampered by a lack of understanding of risk factors. We aimed to identify patient, infection or treatment related risk factors for CRT in the OPAT setting.

METHODS

Retrospective case control study (1:3 matching) within OPAT services at two tertiary hospitals within Australia.

RESULTS

Over a 2 year period, encompassing OPAT delivery to 1803 patients, there were 19 cases of CRT, giving a prevalence of 1.1% and incidence of 0.58/1000 catheter days. Amongst the cases of CRT, there were nine (47%) unplanned readmissions and two (11%) pulmonary emboli. Compared to controls, cases had a higher frequency of malposition of the catheter tip (4/19 (21%) vs 0/57 (0%), p = 0.003) and complicated catheter insertion (3/19 (16%) vs 1/57 (2%), p = 0.046).

CONCLUSIONS

Although CRTs during OPAT are infrequent, they often have clinically significant sequelae. Identification of modifiable vascular access related predictors of CRT should assist with patient risk stratification and guide risk reduction strategies.

Risk of catheter-related bloodstream infection associated with midline catheters compared with peripherally inserted central catheters: A meta-analysis

Background

Both midline catheters (MCs) and peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) can cause catheter‐related bloodstream infection (CRBSI), but the prevalence associated with each is not clear.

Objective

To compare the risk of CRBSI between MCs and PICCs with a meta‐analysis.

Methods

The Web of Science Core Collection, PubMed, Scopus, Embase, The Cochrane Library and ProQuest were searched. All studies comparing the risk of CRBSI between MCs and PICCs were included. Selected studies were assessed for methodological quality using the Downs and Black checklist. Two authors independently assessed the literature and extracted the data. A fixed effects model was used to generate estimates of CRBSI risk in patients with MCs versus PICCs. Publication bias was evaluated, and meta‐analyses were conducted with RevMan 5.3.

Results

A total of 167 studies were identified. Ten studies were collected, involving 33,322 patients. The prevalence of CRBSI with MCs and PICCs was 0.58% (40/6,900) and 0.48% (127/26,422), respectively. Meta‐analysis showed that the prevalence of CRBSI was not significantly different between MCs and PICCs (RR = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.50–1.17, p = .22). While the result showed that the prevalence of CRBSI with MCs was lower than that with PICCs (RR = 0.55, 95% CI: 0.33–0.92, p = .02) after poor‐quality studies were removed. The sensitivity analysis shows that the results from this meta‐analysis are fair in overall studies and non‐poor‐quality studies. All studies have no significant publication bias.

Conclusions

This study provides the first systematic assessment of the risk of CRBSI between MCs and PICCs and provides evidence for the selection of appropriate vascular access devices for intravenous infusion therapy in nursing. The prevalence of CRBSI was not significantly different between them.

Safety of locating the tip of a medium-long catheter at the axillary front and clavicle midline: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Medium-long catheters are being used more and more widely in clinical practice, but we still do not know the impact of different placements, but this is an important clinical issue that cannot be ignored.

OBJECTIVE

At present, the tip positioning of the mid-length catheter mainly includes the anterior part of the axilla and the midclavicular line. Different positioning may have different effects. Therefore, we did this research to confirm which positioning is more safety.

METHODS

We systematically searched the Chinese and English databases: PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Web of Science, China Knowledge Network, China Biomedical Literature Database, VIP, Wan Fang. Literature screening, data extraction, and quality evaluation were carried out by 2 researchers, and finally, use Stata to carry out meta-analysis.

RESULTS

This study is ongoing and the results will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval is not applicable, since this is an overview based on published articles.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION NUMBER

INPLASY2020110042.

[The use of venous catheter : Which ones to choose, how to prevent their complications?]

Intravenous catheters are multiple and essential for daily practice. They are also responsible for high morbidity and mortality. Simple or echo-guided peripheral venous catheters, midlines, PICCline, tunneled or non-tunneled central venous catheters, and implantable venous access device are currently at our disposal. Thus, catheter selection, duration and indications for use, and prevention and treatment of complications vary according to the situation. The objective of this update is to provide the clinician with an overview of knowledge and rules of good practice on the use of catheters.

Investigation of the role of infusate properties related to midline catheter failure in an ovine model

PURPOSE

Infusate osmolarity, pH, and cytotoxicity were investigated as risk factors for midline catheter failure.

METHODS

An experimental, randomized, controlled, blinded trial was conducted using an ovine model. Two 10-cm, 18-gauge single-lumen midline catheters were inserted into the cephalic veins of sheep. The animals were divided into 6 study arms and were administered solutions of vancomycin 4 mg/mL (a low-cytotoxicity infusate) or 10 mg/mL (a high-cytotoxicity infusate), doxycycline 1 mg/mL (an acidic infusate), or acyclovir 3.5 mg/mL (an alkaline infusate) and 0.9% sodium chloride injection; or 1 of 2 premixed Clinimix (amino acids in dextrose; Baxter International) products with respective osmolarities of 675 mOsm/L (a low-osmolarity infusate) and 930 mOsm/L (a mid-osmolarity infusate). Contralateral legs were infused with 0.9% sodium chloride injection for control purposes. Catheter failure was evaluated by assessment of adverse clinical symptoms (swelling, pain, leakage, and occlusion). A quantitative vessel injury score (VIS) was calculated by grading 4 histopathological features: inflammation, mural thrombus, necrosis, and perivascular reaction.

RESULTS

Among 20 sheep included in the study, the overall catheter failure rate was 95% for test catheters (median time to failure, 7.5 days; range, 3-14 days), while 60% of the control catheters failed before or concurrently (median time to failure, 7 days; range, 4.5-14 days). Four of the 6 study arms (all but the Clinimix 675-mOsm/L and acyclovir 3.5-mg/mL arms) demonstrated an increase in mean VIS of ≥77% in test vs control legs (P ≤ 0.034). Both pain and swelling occurred at higher rates in test vs control legs: 65% vs 10% and 70% vs 50%, respectively. The mean difference in rates of occlusive pericatheter mural thrombus between the test and control arms was statistically significant for the vancomycin 10-mg/mL (P = 0.0476), Clinimix 930-mOsm/L (P = 0.0406), and doxycycline 1-mg/mL (P = 0.032) arms.

CONCLUSION

Administration of infusates of varied pH, osmolarity, and cytotoxicity via midline catheter resulted in severe vascular injury and premature catheter failure; therefore, the tested infusates should not be infused via midline catheters.

Anaphylaxis and anaphylactoid reactions associated with the insertion of peripherally inserted central catheters: A multiyear comparative retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are a mainstay of nonpermanent vascular access devices. In this study, we assessed patients displaying anaphylaxis or anaphylactoid reactions to the PowerPICC SOLO and Groshong PICC (Bard Access Systems) using the Sherlock tip locating system (TLS).

METHODS

Patients from 2 tertiary-care hospitals were systematically monitored over 4 years for adverse events following the insertion of a PICC using the Sherlock TLS. Insertion data were also collected using the BioFlo PICC (Angiodynamics)from a third hospital site and from The Ottawa Hospital over 4 years as an additional comparator. Three definitions of anaphylaxis and anaphylactoid reactions were utilized, and the Cohen κ was used to assess interrater agreement. Analysis of reactions among the patient cohorts was performed using the χ2 test with Yates correction or the Fisher exact test as appropriate.

RESULTS

Among 8,257 insertions using the TLS PICCs, 37 potential reactions (0.45%) were recorded. Using specific definitions for anaphylaxis or anaphylactoid reactions, 54.1%-91.9% met criteria. Comparator populations using data from Calgary (n = 491) and Ottawa (n = 7,889) using the BioFlo PICC insertion found no reactions. Anaphylactic or anaphylactoid reactions were significantly associated with the PowerPICC SOLO and Groshong PICC with the TLS compared to the BioFlo PICC (P < .0001) across all definitions. The largest subset of patients experiencing adverse reactions had cystic fibrosis (CF) (n = 4, 10.8%).

CONCLUSION

Our study results demonstrate significant adverse events associated with the PowerPICC SOLO and Groshong PICC using the Sherlock TLS inserted across a range of patient populations. The incidence rate of anaphylaxis or anaphylactoid reactions in the CF population at our center is significantly higher than in non-CF patients (P < .001).

The clinical performance of midline catheters-An observational study

BACKGROUND

The use of peripheral venous catheters (PVCs) is hampered by short dwell time, and central venous catheters (CVCs) are often preferred for medium- to long-time intravenous treatment. Ultrasound techniques allow for easy catheter insertion into the major veins of the upper arm. A new generation of midline catheters, PowerGlide Pro, utilises a one-hand Seldinger technique and can be inserted by one single operator without assistance. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical performance of the PowerGlide Pro midline catheter.

METHODS

Consecutively inserted midline catheters were followed in a prospective, observational quality control study. Endpoints were dwell time, the incidence of premature catheter removal, causes of catheter removal and the dwell time and incidence rates of predefined subgroups representing potential effect modifiers.

RESULTS

Hundred midline catheters, of which 98 were accessible to follow-up, were inserted in 70 patients. Median dwell time was 8 days and 60 catheters were removed before the indication for intravenous therapy had ceased. The overall incidence for premature catheter removal was 71.8/1000 days and no significant effects of subgroups (sex, body mass index, catheter reinsertions, significant comorbidity, anticoagulant therapy, irritant infusions) were identified for either dwell time or the incidence rate for premature midline catheter removal. The most frequent reasons for premature catheter removal were pain during infusion, clotted catheter or signs of infection.

CONCLUSION

The median dwell time of the midline catheters was 8 days with substantial variation, whereas the incidence for premature catheter removal was 71.8/1000 catheter days. The majority of midline catheters were removed prematurely.

2018 Infectious Diseases Society of America Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Outpatient Parenteral Antimicrobial Therapy

A panel of experts was convened by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) to update the 2004 clinical practice guideline on outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) [1]. This guideline is intended to provide insight for healthcare professionals who prescribe and oversee the provision of OPAT. It considers various patient features, infusion catheter issues, monitoring questions, and antimicrobial stewardship concerns. It does not offer recommendations on the treatment of specific infections. The reader is referred to disease- or organism-specific guidelines for such support.

The Safety of Midline Catheters for Intravenous Therapy at a Large Academic Medical Center

Background: Midline catheters (MCs) have arisen as alternatives to peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) for both general intravenous therapy and extended outpatient parenteral therapy. However, there is a lack of data concerning the safety of medication therapy through midline for extended durations. Objective: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the safety of MCs for extended intravenous use. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study evaluating patients who received intravenous therapy through an MC at a tertiary care academic medical center. The primary end point was the incidence of composite catheter-related adverse events that included local events, catheter dislodgment, infiltration, catheter occlusion, catheter-related venous thromboembolism, extravasation, and line-associated infection. Results: A total of 82 MC placements and 50 PICC placements were included; 50 MCs were for outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy, and 32 were for inpatient intravenous use. There were 21 complications per 1000 catheter-days in the outpatient group and 7 complications per 1000 catheter-days in the PICC group (P = 0.91). The median time to complication in both groups was 8 days. The antimicrobial classes commonly associated with complications were cephalosporins, carbapenems, and penicillins. Conclusion and Relevance: Our results suggest that intravenous therapy with MCs is generally safe for prolonged courses that do not exceed 14 days as compared with PICC lines, which can be placed for months. There is still limited evidence for the use of MCs between 14 and 28 days of therapy. This study can help guide our selection of intravenous catheters for the purpose of outpatient antimicrobial therapy.

Comparison of Venous Thrombosis Complications in Midlines Versus Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters: Are Midlines the Safer Option?

Catheter-related (CR) thrombosis is a significant complication of midline catheters (MCs) and peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs). Limited existing data for MCs suggest a favorable complication profile for MCs. To compare incidence of CR thrombosis between MCs and PICCs and to evaluate the impact of quantity of lumens and catheter diameter on CR thrombosis. This was a retrospective comparison spanning 13 months of MCs and PICCs for symptomatic CR thrombosis at an 1100 bed tertiary care academic medical center. Adult patients who had an MC or a PICC placed by the were included. Data were collected using the electronic medical record. Statistical analysis was performed using SAS software. A total of 2577 catheters were included in the analysis with 1094 MCs and 1483 PICCs. One hundred thirty (11.88%) MCs developed CR thrombosis (deep vein thrombosis [DVT] or superficial venous thrombophlebitis [SVT]) as compared to 112 (6.88%) PICCs (odds ratio [OR]: 1.82; P < .0001). Midline catheters had a 53% greater odds of developing CR DVT than PICCs (7.04% MCs and 4.72% PICCs; OR: 1.53; P = .0126). For CR SVT, MCs have a 2.29-fold greater odds of developing CR SVT than PICCs (4.84% MCs and 2.16% PICCs; OR: 2.29; P = .0002). For MCs and PICCs, the incidence of CR thrombosis was 13.50% for double lumen/5F lines and was 6.92% for single lumen/4F lines (OR: 2.10; P = <.0001). Symptomatic CR thrombosis is a serious, life-threatening complication that occurs more frequently in MCs compared to PICCs. Inserters should consider placement of single lumen catheters with the smallest diameter to reduce this risk when a midline is used.

Optimizing vascular-access device decision-making in the era of midline catheters

This narrative review addresses vascular access device choice from peripheral intravenous catheters through central venous catheters, including the evolving use of midline catheters. The review incorporates best practices, published algorithms, and complications extending beyond CLABSI and phlebitis to assist clinicians in navigating complex vascular access decisions.

Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter Postinsertion Complications: A Retrospective Study

PICC offers safe intravenous access for medium- to long-term use with inpatients. There is no association between overall complication rates and PICC material type. Oncology status is the strongest predictor of complications.

[Types and frequencies of complications associated with midline catheters and PICCs in a South Tyrolean district hospital: a retrospective cohort study]

Types and frequencies of complications associated with midline catheters and PICCs in a South Tyrolean district hospital: a retrospective cohort study Abstract.

BACKGROUND

Specialized registered nurses play a key role in the insertion and management of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) and midline catheters in Anglo-Saxon countries. From the German-speaking area no data on the use of PICCs and midline catheters are available.

AIM

The aim of this study was to describe the types and frequencies of complications of PICCs and midline catheters which were inserted by specialized registered nurses in a South Tyrolean district hospital.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of PICCs and midline catheters inserted between 2013 and 2015 in one surgical unit in the district hospital Bruneck (South Tyrol / Italy).

RESULTS

Data from 900 catheters (421 midline catheters and 479 PICCs) inserted in 686 adult patients (404 women, 282 men) were analysed. The cumulative incidence was 29.2 % complications for midline catheters (incidence rate: 13 complications / 1000 catheter days) and 16.0 % for PICCs (incidence rate: 3 complications / 1000 catheter days). The most frequent complication was the removal of the catheter by the patients (PICCs: 6.7 %, midline catheters: 15.7 %). Other less frequent complications were mechanical complications, occlusions, infections and thromboses.

CONCLUSIONS

This study in one district hospital revealed similar types and frequencies of complications as previous international studies. Specialized and clinically competent nurses in German-speaking countries could develop advanced roles in the insertion and management of PICCs and midline catheters.

Risk factors for readmission in patients discharged with outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy: a retrospective cohort study

Background

Outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) is a practical and effective way of delivering antimicrobial therapy, but may be associated with significant risk for hospital readmission. This study aimed to elucidate risk factors related to 30-day readmissions in patients who were discharged with OPAT at Mount Sinai Beth Israel (MSBI).

Methods

This IRB approved retrospective cohort study included patients who were at least 18 years or older, admitted to MSBI from August 2015 to March 2016, and discharged to receive OPAT. Patients with intravenous antibiotics prescribed for chronic suppression or planned readmission within 30 days were excluded. The main outcome was readmission to the hospital within 30 days from previous hospital discharge. Univariate and logistic regression analyses were performed to determine predictors of 30-day readmission.

Results

There were a total of 200 patients included in the analysis; the median age was 60 years, 65.5% were male, and the median Charlson score was 2. A total of 155 (78%) patients received a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC); the remainder was discharged with a midline. The most common medications prescribed for OPAT included cephalosporins (41%), vancomycin (31%), carbapenems (23%), and penicillins (16%). A total of 42 patients (21%) were readmitted within 30 days after previous discharge. Discharge to a skilled nursing facility or subacute rehabilitation center was found to be an independent predictor of readmission on logistic regression analyses (p <  0.05).

Conclusion

Readmissions are common in patients discharged with OPAT. Recognizing predictors of readmission may help determine strategies to optimize care.

The Risk of Adverse Events Related to Extended-Dwell Peripheral Intravenous Access

Midline catheters (MCs) may be useful to avoid repeated venipuncture in patients requiring prolonged intravenous infusions with limited adverse events (AEs). We analyzed 2 Italian hospital databases to ascertain the safety of MCs. Among 1,538 adult patients, 154 MC-related AEs (10%; 2.49 AEs per 1,000 MC days) were reported.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2018;875-877.

Antimicrobial Agents and Catheter Complications in Outpatient Parenteral Antimicrobial Therapy

OBJECTIVES

Debate about whether certain antimicrobial agents traditionally considered vesicants increase the risk of catheter complications has led to uncertainty in venous catheter placement protocols. To understand whether patients requiring home-based outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) should receive peripheral catheters (e.g., midline catheters) versus central venous catheters, and to understand whether certain antimicrobial agents place home-based OPAT patients at higher risk for catheter complications, we investigated associations between antimicrobial agent(s) and catheter complications.

METHODS

We performed a prospective cohort study of patients requiring home-based OPAT discharged from two urban tertiary care academic medical centers, including telephone surveys and chart abstractions. Multivariable Poisson regressions were used to evaluate: (i) associations between antimicrobial agents traditionally considered vesicants, based on pH or osmolarity, and catheter complication rates, and (ii) associations between antimicrobial agent and rates of catheter complications.

RESULTS

Vesicant antimicrobials defined using pH or osmolarity criteria were not associated with an increased rate of catheter complications (adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR]: 1.63, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.89-2.96). Vancomycin was associated with an increased rate of catheter complications, as was daptomycin (aIRR: 2.32 [95% CI: 1.20-4.46] and 4.45 [95% CI: 1.02-19.41], respectively). Staphylococcus aureus infections were also associated with an increased rate of catheter complications (aIRR: 2.13, 95% CI: 1.09-4.19), as were midline catheters (aIRR: 9.44, 95% CI: 2.12-41.97).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study supports recent guidance identifying vancomycin as a vesicant, among a subset of antimicrobial agents, and removal of pH criteria for identification of vesicants.

The incidence of symptomatic upper limb venous thrombosis associated with midline catheter: Prospective observation

Aim:

The evaluation of the incidence of symptomatic upper limb venous thrombosis (ULVT) associated with midline catheters in patients admitted to the hospital.

Methods:

The frequency of symptomatic ULVT diagnosed in a group of patients with midline catheters confirmed by sonographic examination in hospitalised patients at Faculty Hospital over the period of 1 year.

Results:

Four hundred thirty-nine midline catheters were inserted in 430 patients (250 women and 180 men) during year 2015. Nine patients had two midline catheters. The average age of the patient was 68 years (range: 19–96 years). The median time of midline catheter introduction into a vein was 10 days (range: 1–112 days). Symptomatic thrombosis was diagnosed in 20 patients (4.5%), 3.3/1000 catheter days. It was associated with gender (male) and midline insertion in the cephalic vein.

Conclusion:

The risk of upper limb symptomatic thrombosis associated with midline catheters during a stay in the hospital should be taken into consideration when indicating optimal venous access.

Non-central peripherally inserted central catheters in neonatal intensive care: complication rates and longevity of catheters relative to tip position

BACKGROUND

Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) represent a mainstay of intravascular access in the neonatal intensive care setting when long-term vascular access is needed. Ideally, PICCs should be inserted and maintained in a central position with the tip ending in the superior or inferior vena cava. This is not always achievable, and sometimes the tip remains in a peripheral location. Higher complication rates have been reported with non-central PICCs; however these findings have not been confirmed in a solely neonatal series and PICCs with tips in peripheral veins have not been studied.

OBJECTIVE

To compare complication rates and length of catheter duration related to PICC position in neonates.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of all PICCs inserted in term and preterm infants in a tertiary neonatal intensive care unit between May 2007 and December 2009. A single pediatric radiologist reinterpreted the catheter tip site on initial anteroposterior (AP) chest radiographs and categorized sites as central (superior vena cava, inferior vena cava, brachiocephalic vein), intermediate (subclavian, axillary, common or external iliac veins), or peripheral (veins peripheral to axillary or external iliac veins). We analyzed complication rates and length of catheter duration among the three categories.

RESULTS

We collected data on a total of 176 PICCs. Infants with PICCs in a central location had a significantly lower complication rate (18/97, 19%) than those with the PICC tip in an intermediate (24/64, 38%) or peripheral (9/15, 60%) locations (P=0.0003). Length of catheter duration was noted to be longest with central, intermediate with intermediate, and shortest with peripheral PICC tip locations (17.7±14.8 days for central vs. 11.4±10.7 days for intermediate vs. 5.4±2.5 days for peripheral, P=0.0003).

CONCLUSION

A central location is ideal for the tip of a PICC. When this is not achievable, an intermediate location is preferable to a more peripheral position.

Measurement of Vein Diameter for Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter (PICC) Insertion: An Observational Study

Choosing an appropriately sized vein reduces the risk of venous thromboembolism associated with peripherally inserted central catheters. This observational study described the diameters of the brachial, basilic, and cephalic veins and determined the effect of patient factors on vein size. Ultrasound was used to measure the veins of 176 participants. Vein diameter was similar in both arms regardless of hand dominance and side. Patient factors-including greater age, height, and weight, as well as male gender-were associated with increased vein diameter. The basilic vein tended to have the largest diameter statistically. However, this was the case in only 55% of patients.

Safety and utilization of peripherally inserted central catheters versus midline catheters at a large academic medical center

BACKGROUND

Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are a commonly used central intravenous (IV) access device, which can be associated with significant complications. Midline catheters (MCs) are peripheral IV access devices that may reduce the need for central lines and hence decrease central line-associated bloodstream infections. The objective of this study is to compare the utilization and safety of PICCs and MCs.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study comparing the use and outcomes of PICCs and MCs at a large academic medical center between January and May 2015. Data were collected using electronic medical records and IV team insertion data. Statistical software was used for analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 206 PICCs and 200 MCs were inserted in 367 patients within the study duration. Patients with MCs were more likely to have complications than those with PICCs (19.5% vs 5.8%, P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

MCs were associated with a higher risk of non-life-threatening complications versus PICCs, which showed fewer but more serious complications, including bacteremia. The decision to move toward more use of MCs is not without risk. Institutions should continue to review the utilization and safety data of IV catheter use to determine the most appropriate use of these devices.

The Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters (MAGIC): Results From a Multispecialty Panel Using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method

Use of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) has grown substantially in recent years. Increasing use has led to the realization that PICCs are associated with important complications, including thrombosis and infection. Moreover, some PICCs may not be placed for clinically valid reasons. Defining appropriate indications for insertion, maintenance, and care of PICCs is thus important for patient safety. An international panel was convened that applied the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method to develop criteria for use of PICCs. After systematic reviews of the literature, scenarios related to PICC use, care, and maintenance were developed according to patient population (for example, general hospitalized, critically ill, cancer, kidney disease), indication for insertion (infusion of peripherally compatible infusates vs. vesicants), and duration of use (≤5 days, 6 to 14 days, 15 to 30 days, or ≥31 days). Within each scenario, appropriateness of PICC use was compared with that of other venous access devices. After review of 665 scenarios, 253 (38%) were rated as appropriate, 124 (19%) as neutral/uncertain, and 288 (43%) as inappropriate. For peripherally compatible infusions, PICC use was rated as inappropriate when the proposed duration of use was 5 or fewer days. Midline catheters and ultrasonography-guided peripheral intravenous catheters were preferred to PICCs for use between 6 and 14 days. In critically ill patients, nontunneled central venous catheters were preferred over PICCs when 14 or fewer days of use were likely. In patients with cancer, PICCs were rated as appropriate for irritant or vesicant infusion, regardless of duration. The panel of experts used a validated method to develop appropriate indications for PICC use across patient populations. These criteria can be used to improve care, inform quality improvement efforts, and advance the safety of medical patients.

How to Establish an Effective Midline Program: A Case Study of 2 Hospitals

Introduction: Establishing an effective midline program involves more than simply learning an insertion technique for a new product. Midline catheters provide a reliable vascular access option for those patients with difficult venous access who would otherwise require multiple venipunctures or the use of higher-risk central lines to maintain access. An effective midline program establishes a protocol for device selection and includes standing orders to facilitate speed to placement.

Methods: Our retrospective descriptive review evaluated the successful integration of midline programs into existing vascular access bedside insertion programs in 2 acute care hospitals. The investigator reviewed a convenience sample of hospital patients. Participants in the study included vascular access team managers and team members from the sample sites.

Results: The results of this 2-hospital study demonstrate successful integration of a midline program into a bedside insertion program with 0 midline-related infections since initiation. Documentation of overall central line-associated bloodstream infection rates for hospital 1 changed from 1.7/1000 catheter-days to 0.2/1000 catheter-days, reflecting a 78% reduction in infections and a projected cost avoidance of $531,570 annually. Both hospitals demonstrated reduced rates of infection following implementation of a midline program.

Conclusions: Midlines have a history of lower risk for both infection and thrombosis compared with central venous devices. Although more research is needed on the more recently developed midline catheters, available evidence suggests that midlines provide a safe and reliable form of vascular access, reducing costs and the risk of infection associated with central venous catheters, especially those placed solely for patients with difficult venous access.

Quality improvement initiative to reduce deep vein thrombosis associated with peripherally inserted central catheters in adults with cystic fibrosis

RATIONALE

Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are common in the treatment of patients with cystic fibrosis (CF). Previous reports suggest that patients with CF are at increased risk for PICC-associated deep vein thrombosis (DVT).

OBJECTIVES

We assessed potential risk factors for symptomatic PICC-associated DVT with subsequent implementation of a quality improvement (QI) initiative to reduce PICC-associated DVT in patients with CF.

METHODS

This was a 5-year retrospective cohort study with subsequent 21-month prospective observation following implementation of a QI intervention in adults (aged 18 yr or older) with CF. All patients with a PICC inserted from July 2006 to March 2013 at our CF Foundation-accredited center were included. Symptomatic DVT was diagnosed by Doppler ultrasound. PICC insertions were analyzed, and nine risk factors for DVT were analyzed to formulate a QI initiative to reduce risk of PICC-associated DVT. The QI program focused on staff education and included modification to PICC order entry with a 4 French (F) single-lumen (SL) catheter as standard for all patients with CF.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

A total of 369 PICCs were analyzed in 117 unique patients for a total of 5,437 PICC-days of placement. Symptomatic DVT was diagnosed in 28 (7.6%) of the 369 PICCs analyzed. Using regression analysis, the strongest predictors for DVT occurrence were warfarin use (odds ratio [OR] = 9.2, P = 0.006) and history of PICC-associated DVT (OR = 2.97, P = 0.08). Insertion of a 4F SL PICC resulted in zero symptomatic DVT. Zero episodes of DVT associated with 4F PICC insertion prevented use of PICC size in regression analysis. However, univariate analysis revealed that insertion of a 4F SL PICC instead of either 5F double lumen or 6F triple lumen was associated with a reduction in PICC-associated DVT (P = 0.001). After the QI intervention, 4F SL catheter insertion substantially increased to 65.8% of all PICCs inserted, whereas 6F triple-lumen catheter insertion declined to 6.8% of PICCs inserted. The QI initiative resulted in an absolute risk reduction in DVT per PICC placed of 6.1% (P = 0.055).

CONCLUSIONS

To reduce risk of PICC-associated DVT in patients with CF, QI strategies should focus on insertion of smaller-diameter 4F PICCs and reduction in PICC use in high-risk patients when possible.